People may differ on whether November's election was a wave election, but there is no doubt that Democrats won big in many states. Two such states voted marginally for Trump and seemed to mark a return to the blue column by electing Democrats statewide: Michigan and Wisconsin. Unfortunately, due to how gerrymandered the legislature maps are, even though Democrats obtained a majority in the popular vote, Republicans will nevertheless continue to hold large majorities in both states' legislatures.

In Michigan, Democrats broke the GOP's supermajority in the Senate and made gains in the House, but not enough to take either chamber, even as statewide Democrats coasted to victory. In Wisconsin, Democrats lost one seat in the Senate and gained one seat in the Assembly...despite getting a majority of the popular vote and electing Democrats to statewide office.

Taking a page from the NC GOP after Gov. Cooper's election in 2016, Republican lawmakers in both states are making the last of their unified government to strip power away from the incoming Democrat officials. In Michigan, they're seeking to strip power from the incoming SoS (so that she cannot make changed to campaign finance laws) and the AG (so that if she refuses to defend a law, the legislature can step in and defend it). As if that weren't enough, ballot initiatives that passed with relative ease are also being targeted, particularly the one that seeks to create a commission to draw legislative and congressional maps and marijuana legalization. In Wisconsin, they're already taking aim at the governor's authority all in the name of a co-equal branch (because when Walker was governor there was no need).

In NC, Cooper was lucky to have a supreme court dominated by judges that are reasonable...in WI and MI, it's gonna be interesting to see the incoming governors appeal this power grab. Nothing says sore loser like attempting to subvert the will of the people to retain as much power as possible.

The popular vote vs Senate (federal) discrepancy makes sense, and the popular vote vs EC also makes sense. But these statewide elections don't...

Do the states have senates that are similar to the US Senate where a lot of less populated seats go red and a few city seats to blue? I figure, either way, they'd have some sort of chamber that should roughly match the state's popular vote.

Will be interested to see how our resident right wing members answer. Back when I was more right leaning, it did bother me despite it helping my side out. I never had a great answer, let see what they say

Do the states have senates that are similar to the US Senate where a lot of less populated seats go red and a few city seats to blue? I figure, either way, they'd have some sort of chamber that should roughly match the state's popular vote.

Unless a state has its senate represent the counties, state senates don't mirror the US Senate as far as who gets represented. Some states draw districts so that 1 person is sent to the senate and 2-3 are sent to the house (the house/assembly is therefore a multiple of the senate). Unlike the US Senate which never changes boundaries (unless a state decides to merge or split), state senate districts often change after every census. The party in power can crack or pack districts.

I used to think it was simply having every district demographically equal. So if I state is 60% white and 40% black (just to simplify things) then every district should be 60% white and 40% black. Then I realized that would mean black voters would always be the minority in every district and might never be able to vote anyone they want into power

That also ignores the fact that people are distribed differently through a state. So that doesn't work.

Now, if you pack too many similar people into the same couple districts, those would be like 90% voting for one side, and the rest of the districts might be 55% voting for the other side, but those districts being more numerous, skews our 60/40% into a 75/25% vote share.

You'd almost have to pick what you want your outcome to be and divide people up that way. Isn't that inherently political? I mean your goal may be good and all and you're trying to make 60% of the popular vote equal 60% of the seats won, but you have to go off of polling, political assumptions, etc.

Doesn't seem like there is a clean way to do it. Seems like there are a lot of dishonest ways of doing it though

In a political party that religiously believes in winning at ANY cost....no matter the cost - Country/National interest - be damnedLarge segments of the population - be damnedDemocracy - be damnedThe rule of law - be damned

...all over following a bumbling illiterate fool over a cliff...

...then desperation is the last act of a scoundrel. And that's where the GOP in the power-grabbing states find themselves.

BN747

"Home of the Brave, made by the Slaves..Land of the Free, if you look like me.." T. Jefferson

Minnesota is considering an initiative to move to 100% mail in voting.

I imagine everyone here is opposed to that based on this report.

Only those of one major political party.

Oregon, Washington, and California have vote by mail. Oregon went one better and automatically registers people to vote when they are given a licence or state issued ID from DMV. One stop shopping, as they say. One paper ballot per person to fill out at their leisure. No computer hacking, no long lines, no turning away people at polling places because "your name is similar..." or anything like that.

No computer hacking, no long lines, no turning away people at polling places because "your name is similar..." or anything like that.

I am all for it.

Wouldn't it be much easier to fudge votes if they're not in person? Lose whole boxes of them?

Guess you could lose any kind of votes but IDK, it leaving your hands and going through the mail to somewhere seems less secure.

And how is it verified? By signature right? I never understood how that was a good, accurate way of verifying. Maybe people don't have well established signatures, and what looks "close enough" may be very subjective depending on which votes are on that ballot.....

Further, if it doesn't match, they're supposed to notify you, but isn't that kind of unreliable?

I'm not saying I'm against it, there are just a lot of questions I'd need answered before going to all mail ballots. To be fair, the same arguments can be made with the mail in ballots we currently use

No computer hacking, no long lines, no turning away people at polling places because "your name is similar..." or anything like that.

I am all for it.

Wouldn't it be much easier to fudge votes if they're not in person? Lose whole boxes of them?

Guess you could lose any kind of votes but IDK, it leaving your hands and going through the mail to somewhere seems less secure.

Every eligible voter can send their ballot through USPS. Many of us drop ours at the court house. The ballots are counted on election day and not before.

And how is it verified? By signature right? I never understood how that was a good, accurate way of verifying. Maybe people don't have well established signatures, and what looks "close enough" may be very subjective depending on which votes are on that ballot.....

Because the Oregon DMV automatically registers voters, their signature is already on file.

Further, if it doesn't match, they're supposed to notify you, but isn't that kind of unreliable?

I'm not saying I'm against it, there are just a lot of questions I'd need answered before going to all mail ballots. To be fair, the same arguments can be made with the mail in ballots we currently use

The main reason a signature would not match a mail-in ballot would be if the ballot was stolen from the mail box. We are notified when the county clerk sends out ballots and when we should be expecting them in our box.

We had mail in ballots in California, too. I had to get a new ballot because the original was torn or something. I don't remember. Anyway, I went to the court house during normal business hours and explained what happened. They voided my original ballot and gave me a new one for my precinct. One person, one vote.

I feel it is much safer and much less prone to hacking and switching votes than those damn voting machines that are always choosing for you. Besides, with automatic voter ID, a person just needs to make one trip when they are good and ready with all their paperwork.

I'm rather fond of the newer styles of voting machines. The ones used in my precinct are very accurate and it prints out the ballot with all of your choices for you to review before you put it into the reader that counts your vote. I feel like that is much more secure than mailing my ballot in because I watch my ballot go into the machine and into the ballot box. I know it is there and not lost in the mail. I visually see my vote get counted.

I find it funny that the left is now concerned about voting machines getting hacked, when back in 2016 we were told that it was nearly impossible. Voting machines aren't even connected to the internet. You'd have to have a pretty sophisticated system in place, well ahead of any election, to manipulate them in any form. And even then, as I said, you literally review your ballot before putting it in the reader anyways. It's not like the machines are what are reporting your vote to the secretary of state. They're basically just filling out a glorified version of a scantron sheet for you.

Now if you're referring to hacking at the reporting level when a precinct reports their ballot counts to the secretary of state - well that's a link that remains even if you do mail in ballots.

BS, these are “lame duck” sessions of legislatures and Congress that both parties have used in these changes in power. Nobody is having their voting rights or democracy being taken away. Nothing to see, move along.

BS, these are “lame duck” sessions of legislatures and Congress that both parties have used in these changes in power. Nobody is having their voting rights or democracy being taken away. Nothing to see, move along.

Point to an example of an overwhelmingly Democrat state taking power away from a GOP governor. Or a Democrat Congress using the lame duck session to deny an incoming president his appointments.

If "lame duck" sessions where nothing to see, Republicans wouldn't bother doing anything, yet for some reason, they only wait until AFTER an election defeat to kick into high gear. WI Republicans, for example, approved 82 Walker nominees in a single day (names were submitted months ago, but only after the election is it important to approve them).

It should be a constitutional amendment that all sessions (state and congressional) should adjourn after elections except to elect its leaders for the next session or attend matters of urgency related to budget or safety. If legislators adjourn for weeks before an election and then lose an election, it shouldn't be their call what gets to be enacted by the incoming administration, especially if they dragged their feet for so long.

The Wisconsin Republicans in this lame duck session are considering to do away with the licensing required for doctors, nurses, electricians, and anyone who requires a professional license to do their job. Why? Because, if they take away the professional licenses, those people can be paid less as nonprofessionals.

BS, these are “lame duck” sessions of legislatures and Congress that both parties have used in these changes in power. Nobody is having their voting rights or democracy being taken away. Nothing to see, move along.

It is always sad when people cannot accept when something is not right, is wrong to do. Even sadder when good people defend bad actions.

Dems shouldn't do that and neither should Republican's. And we should be able to call out those that do it when it happens.

Get a spine people.

Tugg

I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. - W. ShatnerProductivity isn’t about getting more things done, rather it’s about getting the right things done, while doing less. - M. Oshin

And, it’s all within their state constitutions. The voters can vote again in 2020 or the next lame duck Democrat legislatures can do the same. I’m not doing your research.

GF

Let me guess:

When these states get Democratic majorities and those state legislatures move the goal posts in their favor, you will be as open minded as you are now. When these states strip Republicans of any and all power, you will stand with those laws? No? There is the problem.

If you want one party rule, move to Russia or DPRK or China. We true patriots do not want one party rule.

BS, these are “lame duck” sessions of legislatures and Congress that both parties have used in these changes in power. Nobody is having their voting rights or democracy being taken away. Nothing to see, move along.

Point to an example of an overwhelmingly Democrat state taking power away from a GOP governor. Or a Democrat Congress using the lame duck session to deny an incoming president his appointments.

If "lame duck" sessions where nothing to see, Republicans wouldn't bother doing anything, yet for some reason, they only wait until AFTER an election defeat to kick into high gear. WI Republicans, for example, approved 82 Walker nominees in a single day (names were submitted months ago, but only after the election is it important to approve them).

It should be a constitutional amendment that all sessions (state and congressional) should adjourn after elections except to elect its leaders for the next session or attend matters of urgency related to budget or safety. If legislators adjourn for weeks before an election and then lose an election, it shouldn't be their call what gets to be enacted by the incoming administration, especially if they dragged their feet for so long.

In MA back in 2004 when John Kerry was running for president, had he been elected, then Governor Mitt Romney would have been able to appoint his replacement. The veto proof democratic majority legislature quickly voted to strip this power from the governor, so that a republican would not take his seat in the senate. Later on, when Deval Patrick was governor, the same legislature voted to give him the power back when Ted Kennedy passed away. I forget who Patrick appointed, but Scott Brown eventually won the seat, before being ousted by Elizabeth Warren.

The democrats do this stuff just as much as the republicans do. I also notice that WI and MI are getting little press other than the Huffington Post. Not saying it's right or wrong, but where were the liberals when democrats did this crap as well?

And, it’s all within their state constitutions. The voters can vote again in 2020 or the next lame duck Democrat legislatures can do the same. I’m not doing your research.

GF

Let me guess:

When these states get Democratic majorities and those state legislatures move the goal posts in their favor, you will be as open minded as you are now. When these states strip Republicans of any and all power, you will stand with those laws? No? There is the problem.

If you want one party rule, move to Russia or DPRK or China. We true patriots do not want one party rule.

It’s not one party, the party in power gets to rule by the voters putting them in power. If the voters change the party power—go for it. As noted above, Massachusetts pulled these stunts before. Yes, I will, that’s why we have peacfeful transitions after elections.

If your argument is “go to DPRK” you don’t have an argument, you have a senseless rant. Tantrum on., child and go to bed without supper.

It’s not one party, the party in power gets to rule by the voters putting them in power. If the voters change the party power—go for it. As noted above, Massachusetts pulled these stunts before. Yes, I will, that’s why we have peacfeful transitions after elections.

If your argument is “go to DPRK” you don’t have an argument, you have a senseless rant. Tantrum on., child and go to bed without supper.

GF

Oh, well, you really nailed me, didn't you? "Tantrum" and "child go to bed" and so forth. Stick a fork in me, I am done *eyeroll*

I am just going by the raw voter data from these states. That data says a majority of voters want to be represented by Democrats. That was not possible because Republicans screwed with the system so much it was impossible for a majority of voters to get what they wanted.

Since you are using childish taunts, I can too: Go read something other than Fox and Breitbart and Ayn Rand.